Research Article
An Approach for Generating Weights Using the Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Table 15
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C5 and their local weights.
| | Supplier | Supplier 1 | Supplier 2 | Supplier 3 | EM weights | Model (8) |
| | A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to reputation (C51) (consistency ratio 0.0634) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0.653 | 10.409 | | Supplier 2 | 1/3 | 1 | 6 | 0.285 | 4.554 | | Supplier 3 | 1/8 | 1/6 | 1 | 0.062 | 1.000 |
| | B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to geographical location (C52) (consistency ratio 0.0739) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0.674 | 6.635 | | Supplier 2 | 1/4 | 1 | 3 | 0.226 | 2.226 | | Supplier 3 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.101 | 1.000 |
| | C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to price (C53) (consistency ratio 0.0634) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 0.117 | 1.000 | | Supplier 2 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.268 | 2.277 | | Supplier 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0.614 | 5.205 |
| | D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to patents (C54) (consistency ratio 0) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.333 | 1.000 | | Supplier 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.333 | 1.000 | | Supplier 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.333 | 1.000 |
| | E. Comparison of suppliers with respect to technical capability (C55) (consistency ratio 0.0614) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 1/4 | 5 | 0.231 | 3.312 | | Supplier 2 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 0.709 | 11.666 | | Supplier 3 | 1/5 | 1/9 | 1 | 0.060 | 1.000 |
|
|
